WQ0018635_Staff Report_20210309

State of North Carolina
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Environmental Staff Report
Quality
To: ❑ NPDES Unit ® Non -Discharge Unit
Attn: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Mooresville Regional Office
Application No.: WQ0018635
Facility name: 14625 Black Farms Rd. SFR
County: Mecklenburg
Note: This form has been adapted from the non -discharge facility staff report to document the review of both non -
discharge and NPDES permit applications and/or renewals. Please complete all sections as they are applicable.
I. GENERAL AND SITE VISIT INFORMATION
1. Was a site visit conducted? ® Yes or ❑ No
a. Date of site visit: 03/03/2021.
b. Site visit conducted by: Maria Schutte.
c. Inspection report attached? n Yes or ® No, BIMS to be updated. This staff report contains the main
points.
d. Person contacted: Martin Foil (Owner) by phone and email and their contact information: [phone],
Cell Phone [phone] and [e-mail]. Additional contact: Marsha Phillips (Compliance
Manager) at same office # and [e-mail].
e. Driving directions: From MRO travel to hwy 115 S (toward Davidson); turn left onto Hwy-73; Turn Right
onto Black Farms Road. Facility entrance is on the right (Sign at Main entrance). Follow road around to
additional parking on grass near barn(s).
2. Discharge Point(s): NA — this is a non -discharge permit.
Latitude: Longitude:
Latitude: Longitude:
3. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
Classification:
River Basin and Sub -basin No.
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
II. PROPOSED FACILITIES: NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Facility Classification: (Please attach completed rating sheet to be attached to issued permit)
Proposed flow:
Current permitted flow:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? n Yes or n No
If no, explain:
3. Are site conditions (soils, depth to water table, etc.) consistent with the submitted reports? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 1 of 6

4. Do the plans and site map represent the actual site (property lines, wells, etc.)? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
6. Are the proposed application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) acceptable? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
7. Are there any setback conflicts for proposed treatment, storage and disposal sites? n Yes or n No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
8. Is the proposed or existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? n Yes n No n N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
9. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? n Yes n No n N/A
If yes, attach list of sites with restrictions (Certification B)
Describe the residuals handling and utilization scheme:
10. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
11. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
III. EXISTING FACILITIES: MODIFICATION AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
1. Are there appropriately certified Operators in Charge (ORCs) for the facility? ❑ Yes ❑ No Z N/A
WWTP ORC: SI ORC: Certificate #: Owner performs most of his own work. The
system was connected to Charlotte Water Sanitary Sewer in 2016. The pumps have been pulled. Remaining in -
ground tanks are being backfilled as owner gets material. The irrigation system was never installed, because owner
anticipated the Sanitary Sewer line and was able to manage wastewater in the lagoon. Owner restated that he wants
to remove the lagoon to reduce safety concerns and repurpose the land.
2. Are the design, maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal
system? ® Yes or ® No NA at this time, since the system is disabled. Owner's proposed closure plan has
not been implemented.
If no, please explain:
Description of existing facilities: Wastewater treatment system with post -treatment storage lagoon. Irrigation
system was never installed. Septic tank(s) are currently being filled with repurposed rock/bricks the owner has.
MRO staff recommended clean fill dirt in the past and now at least near the surface. Pump(s) and disinfection
unit removed; Mr. Foil proposed a closure plan via email in 2017. See Section V.
Proposed flow: NA — Proposing to abandon.
Current permitted flow: Should be 0 GPD now.
Explain anything observed during the site visit that needs to be addressed by the permit, or that may be important
for the permit writer to know (i.e., equipment condition, function, maintenance, a change in facility ownership,
etc.)
3. Are the site conditions (e.g., soils, topography, depth to water table, etc.) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste? n Yes or n No NA — irrigation system was never installed and the irrigation fields
have been or are to be repurposed.
If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect the permit (e.g., drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? ® Yes or n No See comment in 111.3. above.
If yes, please explain:
5. Is the residuals management plan adequate? ® Yes or n No
If no, please explain:
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 2 of 6

6. Are the existing application rates (e.g., hydraulic, nutrient) still acceptable? n Yes or n No Not Applicable.
System was disabled when connected to sanitary sewer in 2016.
If no, please explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program adequate? n Yes n No ® N/A
If no, explain and recommend any changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
8. Are there any setback conflicts for existing treatment, storage and disposal sites? n Yes or ® No
If yes, attach a map showing conflict areas.
9. Is the description of the facilities as written in the existing permit correct? ® Yes or ® No Correct for what
was originally installed, but is no longer in use nor functional.
If no, please explain:
10. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? n Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please explain:
11. Are the monitoring well coordinates correct in BIMS? n Yes n No ® N/A
If no, please complete the following (expand table if necessary):
Monitoring Well
Latitude
Longitude
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
C
I
II
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (e.g., DMR, NDMR, NDAR, GW)? n Yes or n No
Please summarize any findings resulting from this review: This a SFR permit w/no reporting required.
Provide input to help the permit writer evaluate any requests for reduced monitoring, if applicable.
13. Are there any permit changes needed in order to address ongoing BIMS violations? n Yes or Z No
If yes, please explain:
14. Check all that apply: Mr. Foil states he wants to abandon the lagoon and rescind the permit, but there are always
multiple demands from other non -environmental regulating bodies with more pressing needs. If the permit is to
be maintained, then the lagoon berm needs attention for removal of woody vegetation.
Z No compliance issues
n Notice(s) of violation
n Current enforcement action(s) n Currently under JOC
n Currently under SOC n Currently under moratorium
Please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify answer/comments (i.e., NOV, NOD, etc.)
If the facility has had compliance problems during the permit cycle, please explain the status. Has the RO
been working with the Permittee?
Is a solution underway or in place?
Have all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit been satisfied? ® Yes n No n N/A
If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this permit?
n Yes ®No n N/A
If yes, please explain: Only if the division believes we have authority to encourage progress on the lagoon
abandonment and can request a timeline.
16. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: ND-SFR WWI lagoon has sat for years. Potential for nitrogen
compounds, fecal and solids (from natural organic debris) that could potentially discharge with flood -like
conditions. Storm water runoff is a potential at this site, as components and lagoon are in poor soils and near
a small drainage feature when the area is saturated.
17. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 3 of 6

IV. REGIONAL OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? n Yes or ® No
If yes, please explain:
2. List any items that you would like the NPDES Unit or Non -Discharge Unit Central Office to obtain through an
additional information request:
Item
Reason
3. List specific permit conditions recommended to be removed from the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
4. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules recommended to be included in the permit when issued:
Condition
Reason
Because they have plans to abandon and never installed an irrigation system,
this does not apply to this facility. This note is an attempt to be consistent with
this request as MRO SFR permits renew.:
Clear permit condition
There is NO issue with this SFR - MRO staff discovered additional site usage at
language restricting use of
another recent SFR inspection and just wanted to note that a permit condition
application site to irrigation
specifying "the irrigation site is for wastewater irrigation only" would be of
only (until connection to an
assistance for future inspections, and will make note of this as similar permits
alternative system and
renew. (FYI- MRO had recent email communication w/Erick and Nathaniel on
rescission of permit).
this item.)
Please let MRO know if this is possible or if the item needs to be addressed
when 02T rules are up for review.
Establish a timeline for the
Request the permittee establish reasonable timeline for lagoon abandonment or
proposed lagoon
maintain woody vegetation in the berm - If CO staff thinks we have authority
abandonment
to motivate action. Proposed lagoon closure was received by email in 2017 w/
no action to date.
5. Recommendation: n Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office
n Hold, pending review of draft permit by regional office
n Issue upon receipt of needed additional information
Z Issue
n Deny (Please state reasons: )
6. Signature of report preparer:
Signature of regional supervisor:
Date: 3.9.21
Maria Schutte — March 8t'`, 2021 r DocuSigned by:
A4.1.41.w N P;ut4
�— F 161 FB69A2D84A3...
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 4 of 6

V. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
For CO information, below is body of Email describing the system closure plan and was received 10/18/2017, 5:05 PM.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@a,nc.gov.
Maria
Thanks for your time and patience with me today. I apologize for being so very late in getting this information to you, but the
pressures of my job here at the farm and what we've been through the past 12 months have been a priority. Anyway, as I mentioned,
here is our plan for the system/pond moving forward. I hope this will suffice. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to
let me know. I will be out of town tomorrow through Monday, returning to work on Tuesday.
System / Permit # WQ0018635
The system is currently disconnected all wastewater sources
Power to the system has been disconnected and turned off
Lentz Septic Services pumped the existing system out on or around 12/22/2016. I believe I had indicated to you earlier that the date
was 1/15/2017. That date was the day we paid invoice for the 12/22/2016 service.
Ben Hendley plumbing completed the laying of the new line/connecting to the CMUD system . That work was completed on or
around 11/02/2016. This work was of course permitted by Meck Cty and met all CMUD specifications for tying onto their system.
The Chlorinator has been disconnected, removed, cleaned and disposed of via sanitary landfill
The rainwater which has collected in the bottom of the tank due to the lid being off will be pumped out. I assume it would be OK to
pump out what litfle there is into the nearby sewer line that connects to CMUD. Total volume of what's in the tank is < 100 gallons.
The effluent and discharge pumps will be removed and repurposed
Clean fill dirt will be put into the tank
Pond
When we connected in November 2016 to the CMUD system, the pond had between 4 and 5 feet of treated water
Due to evaporation, the pond currently has between 4 and 6 inches.
Invasive duckweed is inhibiting the evaporation of the remaining water. The duck weed will be removed with swimming pool net type
device
Once all water has evaporated from the pond, soil samples will be taken per the Pond Closing Guidelines. I am hoping the remaining
water will evaporate so we can avoid costly pumping fees.
If soil samples meet the published guidelines, the existing artificial dam/berm will be bulldozed in and pond area returned to the
previous natural grade
Martin Foil
Executive Director
[phone] office
[phone] fax
f=1)i
HINDS' FEET FARM
... aplaceLc, grow ...
Helping survivors of brain injury through unique programs, education, outreach and advocacy.
Find us online at http://www.hindsfeetfarm.org/ or http://www.facebook.com/hindsfeetfarm!
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14 Page 5 of 6

unmas:‹i
braininjury
Learn about the Unmasking Brain Injury Project at
www.unmaskingbraininjury.org or
www/facebook.com/unmaskingbraininjury
FORM: WQROSSR 04-14
Page 6 of 6